A few weeks ago, I was on FIRE’s So to Speak Podcast, debating age-verification and parental consent for social media laws with Ari Cohn, free speech counsel at TechFreedom, a technology think tank. I argued these policy solutions are necessary to protect kids because parents on their own can’t sufficiently counter the harms from digital technologies and Ari argued that these solutions pose a threat to privacy and civil liberties, particularly adult speech. We debated whether or not the harms to kids from these technologies were bad enough to merit government intervention with age-verification laws, and whether or not age-verification laws are constitutional or if they violate the free speech of adults.
You can watch or listen to the debate here in full:
Let me give you a few of the highlights:
The first major theme of the debate was about whether the harms of social media are as bad as people say they are and whether parents on their own can sufficiently mitigate them.
I made the point that, “the current strategies that parents have been employing like screen time limits and parental controls aren't sufficient with the level of harms. Because even a screen time limit can't stop the fact that the child is always going to crave more, the limit is never going to be enough.” I explained that the harms are not only happening on an individual level but they have changed the entire social environment for kids today. Leaving it up to parents to protect kids on their own isn’t enough.
Cohn responded by trying to argue that the harms are not as bad as people say they are and these technologies are a new form of media we need to integrate into our lives, like television, and argued for leaving it up to parents if they want to keep their child off social media.
I pushed back explaining that with TV parents have a lot more oversight over it, they can walk by and understand what their kids are watching. They can have more control, whereas the online world is really hidden to parents. Parents should have the right to control or decide if they want their child on social media or not, but the reality is that parents actually don't have effective control of that.
Cohn also tried to argue that while there is harmful content online, there is also much good content that is often overlooked.
I pushed back: “social media is often conflated with the benefits of the internet as a whole…I'm not against kids going online for education, you can use Google… But this is talking about how the form of social media…is rewiring kids brains, it's not a helpful form of communication. And some of those benefits that you're talking about can be found in other forms on the internet.”
The second theme of the debate centered around the need for and constitutionality of age-verification laws, which are the main solutions I advocate for to effectively protect kids from harms and to empower parents to have meaningful control over children’s online behavior. I explained currently there's no actual process by which social media websites verify that a child is in fact over the age of 13. “If you want to say, parents should be the ones who decide whether or not their kids get on social media, then age verification and parental consent are necessary pre-conditions.”
The main arguments against age-verifying social media that Ari Cohn put forward were:
Privacy concerns - There are concerns that age verification would require collecting and storing personal data about users, which raises privacy issues.
Chilling effect on free speech - Requiring users to provide identification before accessing online content could have a chilling effect on their willingness to engage in free speech and expression.
Ineffectiveness of age verification - Even with technological advances, it is still relatively easy for minors to bypass age verification measures, undermining their effectiveness.
Potential to restrict adult access - Implementing age verification for minors could inadvertently restrict access for adults as well, which would raise First Amendment concerns.
Disproportionate impact on certain children - Requiring parental consent for minors' online accounts could cut off access for children in unsupportive home environments, further disadvantaging them.
The main arguments in favor of age-verifying social media access for minors that I put forward were:
Protecting children from harm- Social media platforms have been shown to have negative impacts on children and adolescents, and age verification could help limit their exposure to this inherently harmful form of communication and environment.
Empowering parental oversight - Age verification would require parental involvement in their children's social media use, giving parents more control and oversight over their online activities.
Addressing the lack of effective parental controls - Current parental control tools are often ineffective, as they don’t give parents real oversight and children can easily bypass them. Age verification could provide a more robust solution.
Treating social media like other age-restricted activities - Just as children are restricted from accessing certain offline activities like casinos or bars, social media could be treated similarly as an environment that is inherently adult-oriented and inappropriate for unsupervised minors.
Addressing the commercialization of children's data - Social media companies have been accused of prioritizing profit over user privacy, particularly when it comes to collecting and monetizing children's data. They are forming contracts with children and children don’t understand what they are agreeing to. Age verification with parental consent could help address this issue.
I also tried to respond to Cohn’s concerns about privacy by explaining there are age-verification methods available, such as using digital IDs like Louisiana has done, that can verify whether or not a user is adult anonymously, without revealing any underlying information about the user to the platform or website.
I concluded by reiterating that current strategies for regulating kids' use of digital technologies are ineffective and that parents need more control over their children's online activities.
This article helps me understand that this is a complex problem that involves a lot of red tape.
Hopefully we can cut through the bureaucracy for the benefit of our children and teens! I agree that more controls are needed to help parents help their children/teens with social media. The harm outweighs the benefits without more controls.